Printer Friendly

The effects of total quality management practices on performance and the reasons of and the barriers to TQM practices in Turkey.

1. Introduction

Total quality management (TQM) is a firm-wide management philosophy of continuously improving the quality of the products/services/processes by focusing on the customers' needs and expectations to enhance customer satisfaction and firm performance. There are mixed results about the relationship between total quality management practices and performance [1-3]. Table 1 presents a summary of relationships between TQM practices and performance. Although most of the results of the previous studies were positive, some of the results were negative or nonsignificant [2, 3]. The reasons of the mixed results can be as follows. (1) The previous studies used different methods, different TQM variables, and different performance measures in their research models. (2) They were performed in different contexts such as different countries and different industries. (3) The barriers to TQM practices might have caused to the mixed results in different studies.

Research with appropriate analytical methodologies and measuring tools can significantly contribute to investigating work on TQM which analyzed reasons of the relationship between TQM practices and performance. The aims of this work are (1) finding the impact of TQM practices on various firm performances, (2) investigating the reasons and difficulties of implementing TQM practices by firms in Turkey, and (3) using appropriate analytical techniques and statistical analysis methods to investigate the relationship between TQM practices and firm performances. The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 explains the importance and purpose of the research. Section 2 reviews TQM practices and summarizes the results of the relationships between TQM practices and various performance measures reported by the previous studies. Section 2 also includes the proposed research model and the hypotheses related to the relationship between TQM practices and performance measures. Section 3 explains the reasons and the barriers of TQM practices. Section 4 gives the research methodology, including population and sample, the survey instrument, data collection procedures, and statistical analysis. Section 5 provides findings obtained from the data analysis, the explanatory factor analysis, tests for reliability and validity of the constructs, and the multiple regression analysis. The final Section, Section 6, presents discussion, managerial implications, future research implications, research limitations, and conclusion.

2. The Relationships between TQM Practices and Performance

2.1. Overall TQM Practices. Most of the previous studies report that overall TQM practices have positively been related to productivity and manufacturing performance [4, 5], quality performance [6-9], employee satisfaction/performance [3, 7], innovation performance [3, 9, 10], customer satisfaction/results [5, 7, 11, 12], competitive advantage [13, 14], market share [15], financial performance [7, 13, 16-18], and aggregate firm performance [1, 3, 11, 14, 19-23]. However, some authors have found negative or insignificant results [15, 24, 25]. Based on the literature reviewed, we propose the following hypothesis.

H1: TQM practices are positively related to performance.

2.2. Leadership. Leaders in a TQM system view the firm as a system; support employee development; establish a multipoint communication among the employees, managers, and customers; and use information efficiently and effectively. In addition, leaders encourage employee participation in decision-making and empower the employees. Top management commitment and participation in TQM practices are the most important factors for the success of TQM practices. Managers should demonstrate more leadership than traditional management behaviors to increase employees' awareness of quality activities in TQM adoption and practices [26, 27].

Previous studies have found that leadership improves operational performance [28-31], inventory management performance [30], employee performance [29,31], innovation performance [30, 32], social responsibility and customer results [33], financial performance [34], and overall firm performance [35-37]. Based on the literature reviewed, we propose the following hypothesis.

H2: Leadership is positively related to performance.

2.3. Knowledge and Process Management. Effective knowledge management ensures that employees obtain timely reliable, consistent, accurate, and necessary data and information as they need to do their job effectively and efficiently in the firm. Only in this way, the expected benefits from TQM practices can be achieved. Process management emphasizes activities, as opposed to results, through a set of methodological and behavioral activities. It includes preventive and proactive approaches to quality management to reduce variations in the process and improve the quality of the product (cf. [3]). Knowledge and successful process management practices monitor data on quality to manage processes effectively. In this way, turnover rate of purchased materials and inventory can be improved. Errors or mistakes in the processes can also be figured out and corrected on time. The processes are improved by means of controlling the processes periodically and monitoring data on quality continuously. Effective knowledge and process management design minimize the negative effects on the environment. Furthermore, as the processes become prevention oriented, costs are reduced and profit of the firm increases.

Previous studies have found that knowledge, process management, and statistical control/feedback improve operational performance [8, 30, 38], inventory management performance [30], innovation performance [30, 32], social responsibility [33], customer results [30], competitive advantage [16], financial performance [39], and overall firm performance [35, 37, 40]. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis.

H3: Knowledge and process management are positively related to performance.

2.4. Training. TQM firms should give necessary training to all their employees to improve their proficiencies in their tasks. Effective training in management and improvement in quality bring success for the firms. Employees' effective knowledge and learning capability will provide sustainability of quality management in the firm. Furthermore, learning organizations adapt rapidly to the changes and develop unique behavior, which distinguishes them from other firms and enables them to obtain better results. Quality does not begin in one department or function; it is the responsibility of the whole firm. Training should be given to all employees based on the results of the training needs assessment [26, 27].

With effective training, employees know the industry and the structure of the firm. In addition, effective training will improve employees' loyalty to the firm, motivation, and work performance. If employees are trained on producing reliable and high quality products and/or services, their full participation in the production stage would be more fruitful. Thus, customer satisfaction will increase and customer complaints will reduce.

Some studies report that training is positively related to operational performance [1, 30], inventory management performance [30], employee performance [7, 41], innovation performance [30, 32], customer results [12, 30], market and financial performance [7], and aggregate firm performance [41, 42], while others report negative/insignificant results [43]. Based on the literature reviewed, we propose the following hypothesis.

H4: Training is positively related to performance.

2.5. Supplier Quality Management. Supply chain management in TQM implies reducing and streamlining the supplier base to facilitate managing supplier relationships [44], developing strategic alliances with suppliers [45,46], working with suppliers to ensure that expectations are met [47], and involving suppliers early in the product development process to take advantage of their capabilities and expertise [48, 49].

Inputs from suppliers constitute the first phase of producing the products and/or services in a firm. High quality inputs provide high quality products and/or services. Therefore, the suppliers should adopt TQM and be involved in this process. Effective supply management practices enable the suppliers to adopt quality management and deliver reliable and high quality products and/or services timely.

Previous studies have found that supplier quality management positively affects operational performance [28, 30, 50], inventory management performance, innovation performance [30, 32], and overall firm performance [36, 40]. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis.

H5: Supplier quality management is positively related to performance.

2.6. Customer Focus. TQM firms focus on serving the external customers. They first should know the customers' expectations and requirements and then should offer the products/services, accordingly. By the aid of successful customer focus efforts, production can be arranged with respect to the customers' needs, expectations, and complaints. This encourages firms to produce high quality and reliable products/services on time with increased efficiency and productivity. When customer expectations are met, their satisfaction will be increased, and the firm's sales and the market share will increase.

Previous studies have found that customer focus positively affects operational performance [28-31, 51-53], inventory management performance [30], employee performance [29, 31, 51], innovation performance [30, 32, 40], customer satisfaction/results [30, 38, 51, 52], sales [51], and aggregate firm performance [40, 54]. Based on the literature reviewed, we suggest the following hypothesis.

H6: Customer focus is positively related to performance.

2.7. Strategic Quality Planning. Strategic quality planning includes vision, mission, and values of the firms. They are formed by taking into account the quality concept. With effective strategic quality planning efforts employees are taken as an input in developing the vision, mission, strategies, and objectives. This facilitates acceptance and support of strategic quality plans by the employees. Successful strategic quality planning efforts also take into account the possible side effects of the plan to the environment prior to the production. This will manifest and improve social responsibility of the firm.

Previous studies have found that strategic quality planning is positively associated with operational performance, inventory management performance [30, 55], society results [56], customer results, and market performance [35]. However, strategic quality planning is not statistically related to perceived performance in the computer industry [55]. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis.

H7: Strategic quality planning is positively related to performance.

Figure 1 shows the proposed research model of the relationship between TQM practices and performance measures including hypotheses.

3. Reasons of and Barriers to TQM Practices

The reason of implementing TQM practices is improving customer satisfaction, quality of products and/or services, productivity, capacity of the production line, employee performance, quality-of-work-life, market share, and competitive position. Another reason is reducing production development time, waste of inventory, work in process, cost, delivery times, employee turnover, and complaints [3,11, 27, 40, 57]. Table 2 gives the barriers to TQM practices (cf. [57]).

4. Research Methodology

4.1. Measurement Instrument. We decided on leadership, knowledge management, training, supplier quality management, customer focus, strategic quality planning, continuous improvement, employee involvement, and process management as the factors of TQM practices based on the literature review. We also included multiple performance factors, namely, operational performance, inventory management performance, employee performance, innovation performance, social responsibility, customer results, and market and financial performance, to cover all aspects of firm performance. Furthermore, the TQM index, which was developed by Sadikoglu and Zehir [3], was used as a composite variable of TQM practices. We adopted the items of the questionnaires of Ahire and Ravichandran [58], BouLlusar et al. [59], Chong and Rundus [60], Claver et al. [61], Conca et al. [62], Cua et al. [63], Das et al. [12], Kaynak [1], Prajogo and Sohal [24], Rahman and Bullock [64], Rungtusanatham et al. [43], Samson and Terziovski [31], Sila [65], Tari et al. [42], and Zu et al. [37] for both the TQM and performance measurements. The items of the questionnaires of Anderson et al. [66], De Cerio [67], Flynn et al. [68], Fuentes-Fuentes et al. [69], Saraph et al. [70], and Taveira et al. [71] were adopted for the TQM items, and the items of the questionnaires of Benson et al. [72], Kannan and Tan [50], and Terziovski et al. [53] were used for the performance measurement items. We inserted repeating items in each page of the questionnaire to figure out respondent bias and carefulness. The initial questionnaire included 51 TQM items and 29 performance items, respectively. Thirty-one items for the TQM practices and 27 items for the performance measures remained after exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability analysis (appendix). The items included a five-point Likert-type scale anchored from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree, which indicates respondents' disagreement or agreement with each item, respectively. Only the items of the reasons of and the barriers to TQM practices and the reasons of being ISO certified were open-ended questions.

4.2. Population and Sample. We used a cross-sectional survey methodology in this study, and the unit of the sample was at the plant level. The sample was selected from the member firms of Turkish Quality Association and the firms located in the Kocaeli-Gebze Organized Industrial Zone. The members of the Quality Association were more likely to excel in TQM practices and to have ISO certification. We sent questionnaires to 500 firms in 2010.

4.3. Data Collection Process. We refined the questionnaire based on the comments taken from the company representatives (respondents), managers, and academicians. We also revised the questionnaire after conducting a pilot study and taking feedback from the respondents to make it simple, clear, understandable, and easy-to-follow. We asked the respondents about their firm's performance data based on the last three years' period with respect to their major competitor in the industry. We promised confidentiality, and we did not ask for the names of the respondents to improve accuracy of responses and response rate. Furthermore, we agreed on sending the final firm profile to the firms that participated in the survey, on request, to obtain a high response rate. We administered the questionnaires with the guidelines of the follow-up stages given by Saunders et al. [73] in order to increase response rate. Specifically, we administered the survey as follows. First, we informed recipients about the survey and questionnaire by email, telephone, or face-to-face conversation. Second, we sent the survey with a cover letter on Monday morning, when the recipients were likely to be receptive. Finally, we sent the questionnaire to all recipients one week later to increase the response rate. We thanked the early respondents and reminded nonrespondents. We could not post a second follow-up because we did not know which firm responded to the survey. We sent two questionnaires to each firm, and we used the average of them to reduce common method bias. We obtained the responses via email, fax, or face-to-face meeting. We obtained 242 usable questionnaires, with a satisfactory response rate of 48.4 percent.

4.4. Statistical Analysis. We conducted EFA to establish factorial validity and to confirm whether or not the theorized dimensions emerge. EFA analysis showed that the factors were logic and reflected accurately what was intended to be measured. We used principle components extraction with varimax rotation to identify factors with eigenvalues of at least one in order to obtain more easily interpreted factor loadings. We performed a bivariate correlation analysis to identify the correlation of TQM factors with each other and with the measures of firm performances. We used multiple regression analysis for each performance measure to figure out the relationship between TQM practices and performance. The TQM index equals the aggregate of all TQM factors [3]. We classified the reasons of and the barriers to TQM practices of firms in Turkey according to frequency distribution of the sample.

5. Results

5.1. Sample Demographics. Table 3 presents the demographics of the sample. As clearly noticed in the table, most of the 242 firms (91.2%) were private firms; 75.5 percent of the firms were international or global firms; 74.7 percent of the firms were manufacturing firms; 53.0 percent of the firms were large firms, who had more than 250 employees. Most of the respondents were quality managers (44.0%) and middle level managers (53.9%). Most of the firms (92.2%) were ISO certified, 64 percent of the firms had a quality award, and 84 percent of the firms did not get a firm award.

5.2. Results of the EFA, Reliability, Descriptive Statistics, and Correlations. We performed EFA for TQM practices and performance measures separately. After EFA and reliability analysis, the final measurement instrument included 31 TQM items and 27 performance measurement items. As clearly noticed from Tables 4 and 5, the TQM items explained 65.14 percent of the total variance, and performance measurement items explained 75.63 percent of the total variance, with the eigenvalue of more than one, respectively. Specifically, leadership included three items that explained 6.74 percent of the total variance, knowledge and process management included seven items that explained 13.22 percent of the total variance, training included five items that explained 9.72 percent of the total variance, supplier quality management included five items that explained 11.27 percent of the total variance, customer focus included six items that explained 12.29 percent of the total variance, and strategic quality planning included five items that explained 11.90 percent of the total variance. The items of continuous improvement and employee involvement were eliminated after EFA. Also, the items of knowledge management and items of process management fell into one variable named as knowledge and process management. Table 5 shows that operational performance had three items that explained 9.46 percent of the total variance, inventory management performance had two items that explained 7.42 percent of the total variance, employee performance had five items that explained 12.80 percent of the total variance, innovation performance had five items that explained 13.12 percent of the total variance, social responsibility had five items that explained 13.83 percent of the total variance, customer results had three items that explained 6.89 percent of the total variance, and market and financial performance had four items that explained 12.11 percent of the total variance. The final items of the questionnaire were given in the appendix. The factors had content validity since their items were adapted from the previous studies in the literature.

Table 6 lists descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha values, and Pearson correlations for the variables in the research model. All factor loadings were greater than 0.50 thresholds. This means that unidimensionality and construct validity of the measures were satisfied. Cronbach's alpha values of the factors were between 0.77 and 0.90, which surpasses the 0.70 threshold. This showed that all TQM and performance scales had acceptable reliabilities.

As presented in Table 6, the mean values of TQM practices were greater than four. This means that the firms that participated in the survey, in general, have implemented TQM highly with the Lai et al. [74] definition. The study has found that all factors are positively correlated with each other at the significance level of P < 0.01. The measures have face validity because we refined the questionnaire with respect to feedback from the managers and academicians and the results of the pilot study. The bivariate correlations among the TQM factors range from 0.53 to 0.66. The correlations between the TQM practices and performance measures range from 0.23 to 0.60. The correlations among the performance measures range from 0.34 to 0.66. The measures have discriminant validity since the correlation coefficients between the TQM practices and performance measures are lower than the reliability coefficients. There is a strong criterion-related validity since the bivariate correlations of the TQM practices with performance measures are statistically significant.

Correlation coefficients values of independent variables are less than 0.8 (Table 6). This suggests that results will be close to true value, and their multicollinearity does not have an undue effect on the regression models [75].

5.3. Results of the Regression Analyses between TQM Practices and Performance. Table 7 shows the results of the regression analysis between TQM index and the various performance measures. All regression models are significant (P < 0.01) and TQM index is significantly and positively related to performance. This shows that TQM practices, in general, improve firm performance.

Tables 7-14 present the results of the regression analysis between the TQM practices and operational performance, inventory management performance, employee performance, innovation performance, social responsibility, customer results, and market and financial performance, respectively. In all regression tables, the regression models are statistically significant (P < 0.001). The coefficient of multiple determination, [R.sup.2], shows the proportion of variation of the dependent variable accounted for by the independent variables in the regression model. [R.sup.2] values of all regression models are greater than either 0.15 or 0.35 that can be interpreted as medium effect or strong effect, respectively [76].

5.4. Results of the Reasons of TQM Practices and ISO Adoption and the Barriers to TQM Practices. Table 15 shows the frequency distribution of the reasons of TQM practices of the firms. Table 16 reveals the frequency distribution of the barriers of TQM practices faced by the firms.

6. Discussion, Research Implications, and Conclusion

6.1. Discussion of the Analyses. The study has found that TQM index is positively related to all performance measures. TQM practices, in general, improve performance of the firm. Moreover, the study has found that different TQM practices significantly affect different outcomes. Although leadership is not significantly related to any performance measures, knowledge and process management practices are positively related to inventory management performance, innovation performance, social responsibility, and market and financial performance.

Knowledge and process management practice is the only TQM factor that directly and positively affects inventory management performance and innovation performance (Tables 9 and 11). When a firm has an effective performance measurement system, it monitors data on quality and the processes successfully, and it gets its current performance data as needed, to appropriately manage its inventory. Thus, turnover rate of purchased materials and inventory can be improved. Errors/mistakes in the processes can be figured out and corrected; processes are improved and innovativeness of the firm is achieved via controlling the processes periodically and monitoring the quality data continuously. With effective knowledge and process management practices, the firm can also introduce innovative products/services frequently and it can increase its sales and profitability. By successful monitoring of the data on quality, special cause variation in the process can be removed, and the special cause variation can be differentiated from the common cause variation. Therefore, new product or service installment or process development can be made on time. This can trigger new product/service or process development. Knowledge about the environmental impacts of the products/services or processes can be used in monitoring and improving design of the products/services or processes such as eliminating or reducing the harmful parts/components in the products or services with respect to the environment or health of the society. Designing robust processes improves total profitability of the firm.

It has been found that training is positively related to operational performance, employee performance, and customer results. Allocating firm resources to training on quality pays off as professional employees know advanced statistical techniques, concepts of quality, basic characteristics of their industry, and the structure and processes of the firm. Furthermore, treating employees as a valuable resource increases their loyalty to the firm, motivates them and makes them proud of their jobs, improves their work-related performances, decreases absenteeism, and reduces intentions to quit. Educated employees will increase quality, reliability, and timely delivery of the products/services. With effective training, employees know the industry and the structure of the firm better. Effective training on quality also increases employees' skills to work effectively and efficiently. Furthermore, it will improve employees' loyalty to the firm, their motivation, and work-related performances. Employees' training on delivering high quality and reliable products and/or services reduces customer complaints.

It has been found that supplier quality management is positively related to social responsibility. A firm cannot contribute to the society effectively without the collaboration among the supply chain partners. All partners in the supply chain should comprehend the effect of their products/services on the health of the society and environment. When suppliers have quality management systems, they are evaluated with respect to quality and delivery performance and participate in quality training, process improvement, and the new product development process. The synergy among the whole supply chain will make a sense of responsibility of the society so that each partner tries to do their best to protect the environment and reduce noise and pollution. This allows the firm to carry out social responsibility projects for the society with more effective and efficient manner.

Customer focus is the only TQM variable that significantly directly increases customer results (Table 13). It has been found that customer focus is positively related to operational performance, customer results, and market and financial performance. If a firm knows the needs and expectations of the customers accurately and on time via frequent communication with and feedback from the customers, the firm can produce high quality, reliable, and timely delivered products or services. Systematic measurement of customer feedback and its use in the product/service or process improvement can increase customer satisfaction. When a firm knows the customers' current and future needs, expectations, and complaints accurately and on time, the firm can invest in profitable areas and improve its sales, market share, and total profitability.

It has been found that strategic quality planning is positively related to employee performance and social responsibility. If the employees' opinions are taken into consideration in developing the mission, strategy, and objectives of the firm, the employees will support them. Thus, the employees feel like they belong to the firm and work hard with a high degree of motivation to achieve companies' objectives. As a result, their absenteeism and intention to leave the firm will be low. Society is concerned about the conservation of the environment, and it gives credit to the firms which contribute to environmental protection. If a firm develops its strategies on quality and organizational objectives by considering its possible side effects to the environment and living standards of the society, the firm can reduce or eliminate pollution and noise, protect the environment, and gain a positive image in the society.

The results suggest that firms implement TQM for the purpose of improving operational performance, enhancing customer satisfaction and portfolio, and increasing market and financial performance which are the primary reasons of TQM practices (Table 15). Results also have shown that the reasons of acquiring the ISO certification(s) or the quality/supplier award(s) of the firms are the same as the reasons of the TQM practices. Therefore, acquiring the ISO certifications contributes to successful TQM practices. ISO certification for the purpose of advertisement and marketing gimmick prevents the firms from implementing the TQM practices resulting in insignificant or negative effects on performance of the firm [77]. In addition, certified TQM firms can get more recognition and credibility in the market than non-ISO-certified TQM firms.

As given in Table 16, the firms in Turkey face some obstacles such as employee involvement (24.7%), inadequacy of the firm structure and lack of the firm resources (18.4%), illiteracy and unawareness among the employees (15.4%), and constraints of the industry/market (11.5%). Most of the obstacles are employee-related barriers. Firms should primarily focus on change management, employee involvement, and skill development.

6.2. Research Implications

6.2.1. Managerial Implications. The positive relationship between TQM and performance measures shows the importance of each of these practices to improve sustainability. The reasons of TQM implantations and ISO certification may guide managers on how to motivate employees in these applications in order to improve firm performance. Discovering the barriers to TQM can be used for the firms who are in the planning or early stages of TQM practices to improve awareness and understanding of its principles. They can also be used for the firms who have already used TQM for some time to assess the progress and to improve their organizations [78].

6.2.2. Future Research Implications. Continuous improvement and employee involvement are the major tenets of TQM practices. These factors can be included in future studies. Insignificant relationship between leadership and performance can indicate existence of indirect relationship or any other relationship that is nonlinear. Insignificant relationship between some TQM variables and performance may imply mediational relationship among TQM practices. There may also be some mediational relationships among various performance measures. Mediational or indirect relationships among TQM practices and multiple performance measures can be investigated. The relationship between TQM practices and the various performance measures can be investigated in other countries and industries. Enterprise resource planning, ISO certification, firm age, and firm size can also be included as moderating variables in future studies. The reasons of and the barriers to TQM practices and the reasons of having ISO certification may be different in other countries and industries so that a comparative study can be conducted to investigate these parameters.

6.2.3. Research Limitations. The study used subjective measures of performance which may not give accurate information to test the hypotheses. However, we compared the firms in different industries by using subjective measurements. Furthermore, the study asked for perceived data about actual TQM practices and performance measures, but the respondents might have given desired data, which made their firms look good. About 7 percent of the respondents were nonmanagers, who might not understand and answer the questions accurately. In addition, the firms were the members of Quality Association and/or located in the Marmara Region. This would raise concerns about generalizability, reliability, and validity of the study. On the other hand, we did not ask for the names of the firms and respondents which caused which firms belong to which sector. Anonymity of the firm and respondent in the survey may improve accuracy and completeness of the responses. We used average of two responses for each firm to reduce common method variance. Also, none of the repeating items in the questionnaire of the responses were different than [+ or -] 1. Because the model exceeded the required threshold values, common method bias would be expected not to cause a serious problem in data evaluation.

6.3. Conclusion. TQM is a holistic and ethical approach of the firms to continuously improve their products/services or processes involving all stakeholders in order to satisfy their customers and to improve performance and sustainability. The results give that overall TQM practices improve all performance measures. Leadership does not affect performance. This is supported by the results of Choi and Eboch [11] and Kannan and Tan [50]. Knowledge and process management practices improve inventory management performance, innovation performance, social responsibility, and market and financial performance. Successful training improves operational performance, employee performance, and customer results. It has been found that successful supplier quality management enhances social responsibility. Effective customer focus efforts increase operational performance, customer results, and market and financial performance. Effective strategic quality planning efforts improve employee performance and social responsibility of the firm.

It can be concluded that TQM practices improve various performance measures in the firms. All aspects of TQM practices should be effectively managed in a firm because each factor in TQM practices improves different aspects of firm performance. The synergy among the TQM factors brings about exceptional or crucial improvements in the firm performances. Firms should improve employee involvement/skill and firm structure and allocate sufficient resources to implement TQM successfully.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/537605

Appendix

A. Measurement Scales, Survey Items, and Their Sources

Only the items that remained after the reliability tests and EFA are given in the appendix. The sources of each item in the questionnaire are given in the parenthesis at the end of the related item.

A.1. Total Quality Management

A.1.1. Leadership. Organizational top management (senior executives and supervisors) views improvement in quality as a way to increase profits [65, 70].

Organizational top management has objectives for quality performance [37, 58, 70].

Organizational top management is evaluated for quality performance [37, 58, 63, 65, 68, 70].

A.1.2. Knowledge Management. Our firm has an effective performance measurement system to track overall organizational performance [24, 37].

Quality data (error rates, defect rates, scrap, defects, rework rates, cost of quality, etc.) are available [37,58,65,70].

Timely firm performance data are always available [37,43, 59, 63, 65,68, 71].

A.1.3. Process Management. We design processes in our firm to be "mistake-proof" to minimize the changes of errors [24, 37,42, 61, 62, 65, 67, 68, 70].

We make extensive use of statistical techniques to reduce variation in processes [24, 37, 43, 63, 65, 66, 68].

We give clear, comprehensive, and standardized documentation about work methods and process instructions to employees [24, 31, 37, 43, 59, 65, 67].

A large amount of the equipment on the shop floor is currently under statistical process control [37,43, 63, 67, 68].

A.1.4. Training. Training in advanced statistical techniques is given to the employees who need training [12, 70].

Our employees possess sufficient knowledge of the basic aspects of our sector [42, 62, 69].

Our employees understand the basic processes used to make our products/services [42, 62, 69].

Managers and supervisors participate in specialist training [12, 42, 61, 62, 70].

Resources are available for employee quality training in our firm [58].

A.1.5. Supplier Quality Management. Our suppliers have an effective system to ensure quality of their products and/or services [64, 65].

We emphasize quality and delivery performance rather than price in selecting suppliers [12, 58, 61-63, 65, 68, 70]. Our suppliers are involved in our quality training [37]. We work closely with suppliers to improve each other's processes [24, 31, 42, 61, 62, 64, 65, 71].

Our suppliers are actively involved in our new product development process [64, 68].

A.1.6. Customer Focus. We frequently are in close contact with our customers [24, 68].

We actively and regularly seek customer inputs to identify their needs and expectations [12,24, 31, 60, 68].

We inform customers' current and future needs and expectations to our employees effectively [24, 31, 37, 65].

Our customers give us feedback on quality and delivery performance [37, 68].

Customer complaints are used as input to improve our processes [12, 31, 65].

We measure customer satisfaction systematically and regularly [24, 64].

A.1.7 Strategic Quality Planning. We have a mission statement which has been communicated throughout the firm and is supported by our employees [24, 31].

We develop and implement our strategies and plans based on data concerning customers' requirements and the firm's capabilities [42, 62].

The management communicates its strategy and objectives to the staff [42, 61, 62].

Customers' needs are taken into account when establishing objectives [59].

Our quality strategies affect all organizational areas and managerial activities [59].

A.2. Performance

A.2.1. Operational Performance. Quality of our products/services is high [50, 60, 63, 65].

Reliability of our products/services is high [24, 58, 79]. We deliver our products/services on time to customers [31, 63-65, 79].

A.2.2. Inventory Management Performance. Purchase material turnover is high in our firm [1, 80].

Total inventory turnover is high in our firm [1, 80].

A.2.3. Employee Performance. Our employees' organizational commitment is high [59].

Our employees' job performance is high [65].

Our employees' absenteeism is low [59, 65].

Our employees' morale is high [31, 60, 64].

Our employees' turnover rate is low [59, 65].

A.2.4. Innovation Performance. The number of successful new product/service introductions of our firm is high [24, 60, 65].

The use of latest technological innovations in our new product is high [24].

The technological competitiveness of our firm is high [24].

The speed of new product development of our firm is high [24].

The number of our new products that are first-to-market is high [24].

A.2.5. Social Responsibility. Protection of environment in our firm has developed [42, 59, 61].

Noise levels caused by our firm have decreased 59]. Pollution levels caused by our firm have decreased [59]. Our firm has a positive impact on society [59].

Our firm is actively involved in the community [42, 61].

A.2.6. Customer Results. Customer satisfaction has improved [12, 31, 37, 42, 43, 59, 61, 62, 64, 72].

Customer retention has improved [12, 65]. Customer complaints have decreased [59].

A.2.7. Market and Financial Performance. Return on assets of our firm has increased [1,12, 37, 50, 65, 80].

Market share of our firm has improved [1,12, 37, 59, 65, 80].

Profits of our firm have grown [1, 37, 42, 59, 61, 62, 65, 80]. Sales of our firm have grown [1, 37, 59, 80].

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1] H. Kaynak, "The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 405-435, 2003.

[2] A. Nair, "Meta-analysis of the relationship between quality management practices and firm performance-implications for quality management theory development," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 948-975, 2006.

[3] E. Sadikoglu and C. Zehir, "Investigating the effects of innovation and employee performance on the relationship between total quality management practices and firm performance: an empirical study of Turkish firms," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 13-26, 2010.

[4] R. H. Chenhall, "Reliance on manufacturing performance measures, total quality management and organizational performance," Management Accounting Research, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 187-206, 1997

[5] R. Mann and D. Kehoe, "An evaluation of the effects of quality improvement activities on business performance," The International Journal of Quality and Reliability and Management, vol. 11, pp. 29-44,1994.

[6] S. Curkovic, S. Vickery, and C. Droge, "Quality-related action programs: their impact on quality performance and firm performance," Decision Sciences, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 885-904, 2000.

[7] M. M. F. Fuentes, F. J. L. Montes, and L. M. Fernandez, "Total quality management, strategic orientation and organizational performance: the case of Spanish companies," Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 303-323, 2006.

[8] S. M. Lee, B.-H. Rho, and S.-G. Lee, "Impact of malcolm baldrige national quality award criteria on organizational quality performance," International Journal of Production Research, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 2003-2020, 2003.

[9] D. I. Prajogo and S. W. Hong, "The effect of TQM on performance in R&D environments: a perspective from South Korean firms," Technovation, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 855-863, 2008.

[10] M. L. Santos-Vijande and L. I. Alvarez-Gonzalez, "Innovativeness and organizational innovation in total quality oriented firms: the moderating role of market turbulence," Technovation, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 514-532, 2007.

[11] T. Y. Choi and K. Eboch, "The TQM Paradox: relations among TQM practices, plant performance, and customer satisfaction," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 59-75, 1998.

[12] A. Das, R. B. Handfield, R. J. Calantone, and S. Ghosh, "A contingent view of quality management: the impact of international competition on quality," Decision Sciences, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 649-689, 2000.

[13] A. Agus and R. M. Sagir, "The structural relationships between total quality management, competitive advantage and bottom line financial performance: an empirical study of Malaysian manufacturing companies," Total Quality Management, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 1018-1024, 2001.

[14] S. A. Brah, S. L. Tee, and B. M. Rao, "Relationship between TQM and performance of Singapore companies," International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 356-379, 2002.

[15] S. A. Mohrman, R. V Tenkasi, E. E. Lawler III, and G. G. Ledford Jr., "Total quality management: practice and outcomes in the largest US firms," Employee Relations, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 26-41, 1995.

[16] G. S. Easton and S. L. Jarrell, "The effects of total quality management on corporate performance: an empirical investigation," Journal of Business, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 253-307, 1998.

[17] A. B. E. Tena, J. C. B. Llusar, and V. R. Puig, "Measuring the relationship between total quality management and sustainable competitive advantage: a resource-based view," Total Quality Management, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 932-938, 2001.

[18] A. B. Escrig, J. C. Bou, and V Roca, "Measuringthe relationship between total quality management and sustainable competitive advantage: a resource based view," Total Quality Management, vol. 12, pp. 932-938, 2001.

[19] T J. Douglas and W Q. Judge Jr., "Total quality management implementation and competitive advantage: the role of structural control and exploration," Academy of Management Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 158-169, 2001.

[20] K. B. Hendricks and V R. Singhal, "Quality awards and the market value of the firm: an empirical investigation," Management Science, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 415-436, 1996.

[21] K. B. Hendricks and V R. Singhal, "Does implementing an effective TQM program actually improve operating performance? Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality awards," Management Science, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 1258-1274, 1997

[22] J. Merino-Diaz de Cerio, "Quality management practices and operational performance: empirical evidence for Spanish industry," International Journal of Production Research, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 2763-2786, 2003.

[23] B. Sharma, "Quality management dimensions, contextual factors and performance: an empirical investigation," Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1231-1244, 2006.

[24] D. I. Prajogo and A. S. Sohal, "The integration of TQM and technology/R&D management in determining quality and innovation performance," Omega, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 296-312, 2006.

[25] E. Sadikoglu, "Total quality management: context and performance," The Journal of American Academy of Business, vol. 5, no. 1-2, pp. 364-366, 2004.

[26] F. Criado and A. Calvo-Mora, "Excellence profiles in Spanish firms with quality management systems," Total Quality Management, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 655-679, 2009.

[27] D. L. Goetsch and S. B. Davis, Quality Management for Organizational Excellence, Pearson, New Jersey, NJ, USA, 6th edition, 2010.

[28] S. L. Ahire and K. C. O'Shaughnessy, "The role of top management commitment in quality management: an empirical analysis of the auto parts industry," International Journal of Quality Science, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 5-37, 1998.

[29] D. Dow, D. Samson, and S. Ford, "Exploding the myth: do all quality management practices contribute to superior quality performance?" Production and Operations Management, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-27, 1999.

[30] A. C. Phan, A. B. Abdallah, and Y. Matsui, "Quality management practices and competitive performance: empirical evidence from Japanese manufacturing companies," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 133, no. 2, pp. 518-529, 2011.

[31] D. Samson and M. Terziovski, "Relationship between total quality management practices and operational performance," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 393-409, 1999.

[32] D.-Y. Kim, V Kumar, and U. Kumar, "Relationship between quality management practices and innovation," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 295-315, 2012.

[33] M. M. Parast and S. G. Adams, "Corporate social responsibility, benchmarking, and organizational performance in the petroleum industry: a quality management perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 139, pp. 447-458, 2012.

[34] E. E. Adam, L. M. Corbett, B. E. Flores et al., "An international study of quality improvement approach and firm performance," International Journal of Operations and Production Management, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 842-873, 1997

[35] M. S. Macinati, "The relationship between quality management systems and organizational performance in the Italian National Health Service," Health Policy, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 228-241, 2008.

[36] T. C. Powell, "Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study," Strategic Management Journal, vol. 16, pp. 15-37, 1995.

[37] X. Zu, L. D. Fredendall, and T. J. Douglas, "The evolving theory of quality management: the role of Six Sigma," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 630-650, 2008.

[38] C. Forza and R. Filippini, "TQM impact on quality conformance and customer satisfaction: a causal model," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 1-20,1998.

[39] D. D. Wilson and D. A. Collier, "An empirical investigation of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award causal model," Decision Sciences, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 361-390, 2000.

[40] C. Zehir and E. Sadikoglu, "Relationships among total quality management practices: an empirical study in Turkish Industry," International Journal of Performability Engineering, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 667-678, 2012.

[41] A. W. MacKelprang, J. Jayaram, and K. Xu, "The influence of types of training on service system performance in mass service and service shop operations," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 138, no. 1, pp. 183-194, 2012.

[42] J. J. Tari, J. F. Molina, and J. L. Castejon, "The relationship between quality management practices and their effects on quality outcomes," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 183, pp. 483-501, 2007.

[43] M. Rungtusanatham, C. Forza, R. Filippini, and J. C. Anderson, "A replication study of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method: insights from an Italian context," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 77-95, 1998.

[44] D. R. Krause, "Supplier development: current practices and outcomes," International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 12-19,1997

[45] W. C. Copacino, "Seven supply-chain principles," Traffic Management, vol. 35, no. 1, p. 60,1996.

[46] T. Mason, "Getting your suppliers on the team," Logistics Focus, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 10-22, 1996.

[47] C. A. Watts and C. K. Hahn, "Supplier development programs: an empirical Analysis," International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 10-17,1993.

[48] R. M. Monczka, R. J. Trent, and T. J. Callahan, "Supply base strategies to maximize supplier performance," International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 42-54, 1994.

[49] G. L. Ragatz, R. B. Handfield, and T. V. Scannell, "Success factors for integrating suppliers into newproduct development," Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 190-202,1997

[50] V. R. Kannan and K. C. Tan, "Just in time, total quality management, and supply chain management: understanding their linkages and impact on business performance," Omega, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 153-162, 2005.

[51] J. J. Tari and E. Claver, "The individual effects of total quality management on customers, people and society results and quality performance in SMEs," Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 199-211, 2008.

[52] J. R. Grandzol and M. Gershon, "Which TQM practices really matter: an empirical investigation," Quality Management Journal, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 43-59,1997

[53] M. Terziovski, D. Power, and A. S. Sohal, "The longitudinal effects of the ISO 9000 certification process on business performance," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 146, no. 3, pp. 580-595, 2003.

[54] T A. Joiner, "Total quality management and performance: the role of organization support and co-worker support," International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 617-627, 2007.

[55] C. D. Ittner and D. F. Larcker, "Quality strategy, strategic control systems, and organizational performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 22, no. 3-4, pp. 293-314, 1997

[56] K. Obeng and I. Ugboro, "Effective strategic planning in public transit systems," Transportation Research E, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 420-439, 2008.

[57] E. Sadikoglu, An analysis of the relationship between work measurement and total quality management (TQM) [Ph.D. thesis], University of Missouri-Rolla, 2003.

[58] S. L. Ahire and T. Ravichandran, "An innovation diffusion model of TQM implementation," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 445-464, 2001.

[59] J. C. Bou-Llusar, A. B. Escrig-Tena, V Roca-Puig, and I. Beltran-Martin, "An empirical assessment of the EFQM excellence model: evaluation as a TQM framework relative to the MBNQA model," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 122, 2009.

[60] V. K. Chong and M. J. Rundus, "Total quality management, market competition and organizational performance," British Accounting Review, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 155-172, 2004.

[61] E. Claver, J. J. Tari, and J. F. Molina, "Critical factors and results of quality management: an empirical study," Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 91-118, 2003.

[62] F. J. Conca, J. Llopis, and J. J. Tari, "Development of a measure to assess quality management in certified firms," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 156, no. 3, pp. 683-697, 2004.

[63] K. O. Cua, K. E. McKone, and R. G. Schroeder, "Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 675-694, 2001.

[64] S.-U. Rahman and P. Bullock, "Soft TQM, hard TQM, and organisational performance relationships: an empirical investigation," Omega, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 73-83, 2005.

[65] I. Sila, "Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens of organizational theories: an empirical study," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 83-109, 2007.

[66] J. C. Anderson, M. Rungtusanatham, R. G. Schroeder, and S. Devaraj, "A path analytic model of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method: preliminary empirical findings," Decision Sciences, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 637-658, 1995.

[67] J. M.-D. De Cerio, "Factors relating to the adoption of quality management practices: an analysis for Spanish manufacturing firms," Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 25-44, 2003.

[68] B. B. Flynn, R. G. Schroeder, and S. Sakakibara, "A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 339-366, 1994.

[69] M. M. Fuentes-Fuentes, F J. Llorens-Montes, and C. A. Albacete-Saaez, "Quality management implementation across different scenarios of competitive structure: an empirical investigation," International Journal of Production Research, vol. 45, no. 13, pp. 2975-2995, 2007.

[70] J. V Saraph, P. G. Benson, and R. G. Schroeder, "An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management," Decision Sciences, vol. 20, pp. 810-829,1989.

[71] A. D. Taveira, C. A. James, B.-T Karsh, and F. Sainfort, "Quality management and the work environment: an empirical investigation in a public sector organization," Applied Ergonomics, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 281-291, 2003.

[72] P. G. Benson, J. V. Saraph, and R. G. Schroeder, "The effects of organizational context on quality management: an empirical investigation," Management Science, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 107-1124, 1991.

[73] M. Saunders, P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill, Research Methods for Business Students, Prentice Hall, 4th edition, 2007.

[74] K.-H. Lai, T. S. Weerakoon, and T. C. E. Cheng, "The state of quality management implementation: a cross-sectional study of quality-oriented companies in Hong Kong," Total Quality Management, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 29-38, 2002.

[75] H. B. Asher, Causal Modeling, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Calif, USA, 1983.

[76] J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition, 1988.

[77] E. Sadikoglu and T. Temur, "The relationship between ISO 17025 quality management system accreditation and laboratory performance," in Quality Management and Practices, K. S. Ng, Ed., chapter 13, pp. 221-230, InTech, Croatia, Rijeka, 2012.

[78] R. J. Masters, "Overcoming the barriers to TQMs success," Quality Progress, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 53-55, 1996.

[79] M. Terziovski, D. Samson, and D. Dow, "The business value of quality management systems certification evidence from Australia and New Zealand," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1-18,1997.

[80] H. Kaynak and J. L. Hartley, "A replication and extension of quality management into the supply chain," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 468-489, 2008.

[81] M. Demirbag, S. C. L. Koh, E. Tatoglu, and S. Zaim, "TQM and market orientation's impact on SMEs' performance," Industrial Management and Data Systems, vol. 106, no. 8, pp. 1206-1228, 2006.

[82] R. Saravanan and K. S. P. Rao, "The impact of total quality service age on quality and operational performance: an empirical study," TQM Magazine, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 197-205, 2007

[83] C. R. Harris, "The evolution of quality management: an overview of the TQM literature," Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 95-105, 1995.

[84] S. Smith, D. Tranfield, F. Morris, and S. Whittle, "Strategies for managing the TQ agenda," International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 75-88, 1994.

[85] M. J. Whalen and M. A. Rahim, "Common barriers to implementation and development of a TQM program," Industrial Management, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 19-21, 1994.

[86] G. Bohan, "Whatever happened to TQM? Or how a good strategy got a bad reputation," National Productivity Review, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 13-16, 1998.

[87] C. W. Burril and J. Ledolter, Achieving Quality through Continual Improvement, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1999.

[88] A. S. Baillie, "The Deming approach: being better than the best," SAM Advanced Management Journal, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 15-23, 1986.

[89] D. McCabe and A. Wilkinson, "The rise and fall of TQM: the vision, meaning and operation of change," Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 18-29, 1998.

Esin Sadikoglu and Hilal Olcay

School of Business Administration, Gebze Institute of Technology, 41400 Kocaeli, Turkey

Correspondence should be addressed to Esin Sadikoglu; e.sadikoglu@gyte.edu.tr

Received 24 April 2013; Revised 20 September 2013; Accepted 1 January 2014; Published 16 March 2014

Academic Editor: David Bulger

Table 1: A summary of the hypotheses and the related
literature showing positive relationships between TQM
practices and performance.

Hypothesis            Operational            Inventory management
                      performance            performance

H1: TQM practices     Demirbag et al.,       cf. Sadikoglu and
                      2006 [81]; Saravanan   Zehir, 2010 [3]
                      and Rao, 2007 [82] ;
                      Tari and Claver,
                      2008 [51]; cf.
                      Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                      2010 [3]

H2: Leadership        Samson and             Phan et al., 2011
                      Terziovski, 1999       [30]; cf. Sadikoglu
                      [31]; Ahire and        and Zehir, 2010 [3]
                      O'Shaughnessy, 1998
                      [28]; Dowet al.,
                      1999 [29] ; Phan et
                      al., 2011 [30] ; cf.
                      Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                      2010 [3]

H3: Knowledge and     Phan et al., 2011      Phan et al., 2011
process management    [30]; Forza and        [30]; cf. Sadikoglu
                      Flippini, 1998 [38];   and Zehir, 2010 [3]
                      Lee et al., 2003
                      [8]; cf. Sadikoglu
                      and Zehir, 2010 [3]

H4: Training          Kaynak, 2003 [1];      Phan et al., 2011
                      Phan et al., 2011      [30]; cf. Sadikoglu
                      [30]; cf. Sadikoglu    and Zehir, 2010 [3]
                      and Zehir, 2010 [3]

H5: Supplier          Kannan and Tan, 2005   Phan et al., 2011
quality management    [50]; Ahire and        [30]; Kim et al.,
                      O'Shaughnessy, 1998    2012    [32]; cf.
                      [28]; Phan et al.,     Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                      2011 [30]; cf.         2010 [3]

                      Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                      2010 [3]

H6: Customer focus    Samson and             Phan et al., 2011
                      Terziovski, 1999       [30]; cf. Sadikoglu
                      [31]; Terziovski et    and Zehir, 2010 [3]
                      al., 2003 [53];
                      Ahire and
                      O'Shaughnessy, 1998
                      [28]; Dow et al.,
                      1999    [29]; Phan
                      et al., 2011 [30];
                      Grandzol and
                      Gershon, 1997 [52];
                      Tari and Claver,
                      2008 [51]; Das et
                      al., 2000 [12]; cf.
                      Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                      2010 [3]

H7: Strategic                                Phan et al., 2011
quality planning                             [30]; Ittner and
                                             Larcker, 1997 [55]

Hypothesis            Employee performance   Innovation
                                             performance

H1: TQM practices     Sadikoglu and Zehir,   Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                      2010 [3]; Fuentes et   2010 [3]; Prajogo
                      al., 2006 [7];         and Hong, 2008 [9];
                      Mohrman et al., 1995   Santos-Vijande and
                      [15]                   Alvarez-G onzalez,
                                             2007 [10]

H2: Leadership        Samson and             Phan et al., 2011
                      Terziovski, 1999       [30]; Kim et al.,
                      [31]; Dow et al.,      2012 [32]; cf.
                      1999 [29]; cf.         Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                      Sadikoglu and Zehir,   2010 [3]
                      2010 [3]

H3: Knowledge and     cf. Sadikoglu and      Phan et al., 2011
process management    Zehir, 2010 [3]        [30]; Kim et al.,
                                             2012    [32]; cf.
                                             Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                                             2010 [3]

H4: Training          Fuentes et al., 2006   Phan et al., 2011
                      [7]; MacKelprang et    [30]; Kim et al.,
                      al., 2012 [41]; cf.    2012    [32]
                      Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                      2010 [3]

H5: Supplier                                 Phan et al., 2011
quality management                           [30]; Kim et al.,
                                             2012    [32]

H6: Customer focus    Samson and             Phan et al., 2011
                      Terziovski, 1999       [30]; Kim et al.,
                      [31]; Dow et al.,      2012    [32]; Zehir
                      1999 [29]; Tari and    and Sadikoglu, 2012
                      Claver, 2008 [51];     [40]; cf. Sadikoglu
                      cf. Sadikoglu and      and Zehir, 2010 [3]
                      Zehir, 2010 [3]

H7: Strategic
quality planning

Hypothesis            Social                 Customer results
                      responsibility

H1: TQM practices                            Das et al., 2000
                                             [12]; Fuentes et
                                             al., 2006 [7]; Mann
                                             and Kehoe, 1994 [5];
                                             Choi and Eboch, 1998
                                             [11]; Das et al.,
                                             2000 [12]; cf.
                                             Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                                             2010 [3]

H2: Leadership                               Parast and Adams,
                                             2012 [33]; cf.
                                             Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                                             2010 [3]

H3: Knowledge and     Parast and Adams,      Phan et al., 2011
process management    2012 [33]              [30]; cf. Sadikoglu
                                             and Zehir, 2010 [3]

H4: Training                                 Das et al., 2000
                                             [12]; Phan et al.,
                                             2011 [30]; cf.
                                             Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                                             2010 [3]

H5: Supplier
quality management

H6: Customer focus                           Phan et al., 2011
                                             [30]; Forza and
                                             Flippini, 1998 [38];
                                             Grandzol and
                                             Gershon, 1997 [52];
                                             Tari and Claver,
                                             2008 [51]

H7: Strategic         Obeng and Ugboro,
quality planning      2008 [56]

Hypothesis            Market and financial   Aggregate firm
                      performance            performance

H1: TQM practices     Fuentes et al., 2006   Kaynak, 2003 [1];
                      [7]; Mann and Kehoe,   Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                      1994 [5]; Agus and     2010 [3]; Choi and
                      Sagir, 2001 [13];      Eboch, 1998 [11];
                      Easton and Jarrell,    Brah et al., 2002
                      1998 [16]; Escrig et   [14]; Hendricks and
                      al., 2001 [18]; cf.    Singhal, 1997 [21];
                      Sadikoglu and Zehir,   Douglas and Judge,
                      2010 [3]               2001 [19]; Merino-
                                             Diaz de Cerio 2003
                                             [22]; Sharma, 2006
                                             [23]

H2: Leadership        Adam et al., 1997      Zu et al., 2008
                      [34]; cf. Sadikoglu    [37]; Powell, 1995
                      and Zehir, 2010 [3]    [36]; Macinati, 2008
                                             [35]; cf. Sadikoglu
                                             and Zehir, 2010 [3]

H3: Knowledge and     Wilson and Collier,    Zuet al., 2008 [37];
process management    2000 [39]; cf.         Macinati, 2008 [35];
                      Sadikoglu and Zehir,   Zehir and Sadikoglu,
                      2010 [3]               2012 [81]; cf.
                                             Sadikoglu and Zehir,
                                             2010 [3]

H4: Training          Fuentes et al., 2006   Tariet al., 2007
                      [7]; cf. Sadikoglu     [42]; MacKelprang et
                      and Zehir, 2010 [3]    al., 2012 [41]

H5: Supplier          Fuentes et al., 2006   Nair, 2006 [2];
quality management    [7]                    Powell, 1995 [36];
                                             Zehir and Sadikoglu,
                                             2012 [40]

H6: Customer focus    Fuentes et al., 2006   Chong and Rundus,
                      [7]; Nair, 2006 [2];   2004 [60]; Nair,
                      cf. Sadikoglu and      2006 [2]; Zehir and
                      Zehir, 2010 [3]        Sadikoglu, 2012
                                             [40]; Joiner, 2007
                                             [54]

H7: Strategic         Macinati, 2008 [35]
quality planning

Table 2: Barriers to TQM practices.

The main barriers to TQM             References
practices

Failure to incorporate quality       Harris, 1995 [83]; Smith et al.,
management to all departments        1994 [84]

Resistance of the workforce;         Harris, 1995 [83]; Whalen and
inadequate use of empowerment and    Rahim, 1994 [85]; Masters, 1996
teamwork; failure to develop         [78]; Goetsch and Davis, 2010
employee participation               [27]; Bohan, 1998 [86]

Lack of proper training and          Whalen and Rahim, 1994 [85];
preparation                          Masters, 1996 [78]; Bohan, 1998
                                     [86] ; Burril and Ledolter, 1999
                                     [87]

Inappropriate supervisory            Whalen et al., 1994 [85];
structure or culture of the firm     Masters, 1996 [78]; Mcabe et al.,
for implementing TQM                 1998; Burril and Ledolter, 1999
                                     [87]

Lack of involvement and              Baillie 1986 [88]; Smith et al.,
commitment of top management         1994 [84]; Whalen and Rahim, 1994
                                     [85]; Masters, 1996 [78]; Bohan,
                                     1998 [86]; Goetsch and Davis,
                                     2010 [27]

Lack of understanding of TQM;        Smith et al., 1994 [84]; Masters,
inappropriately adopting TQM to      1996 [78]; Bohan, 1998 [86];
the organization                     Goetsch and Davis, 2010 [27]

Managers' resistance to learn and    Smith et al., 1994 [84]; Goetsch
change                               and Davis, 2010 [27]

Inability to build a learning        Masters, 1996 [78]
organization that provides for
continuous improvement

Poor planning                        Whalen and Rahim, 1994 [85];
                                     Masters, 1996 [78]

Insufficient resources provided      Whalen and Rahim, 1994 [85];
                                     Masters, 1996 [78]

Ineffective measurement of           Whalen and Rahim, 1994 [85];
quality improvement and lack of      Masters, 1996 [78]
access to data and results

Inappropriate reward system          Masters, 1996 [78]; Goetsch and
                                     Davis, 2010 [27]

Short-term focus or using a          Masters, 1996 [78]; Goetsch and
Band-Aid solution                    Davis, 2010 [27]

Paying inadequate attention to       Masters, 1996 [78]; Goetsch and
internal and external customers      Davis, 2010 [27]

Downsizing                           McCabe and Wilkinson, 1998 [89]

Table 3: Demographic profiles of the respondents.

Sector
  Private                                       217 (91.2%) *
  Public                                          21 (8.8%)
Scope of operation
  Regional                                        23 (9.7%)
  National                                       35 (14.8%)
  International                                  101 (42.8%)
  Global                                         77 (32.7%)
Industry
  Manufacturing (74.7%)
    Electronics and metallurgy                   59 (24.9%)
    Automotive                                   45 (19.0%)
    Construction                                 29 (12.2%)
    Chemistry                                     18 (7.6%)
    Textile                                       16 (6.8)
    Plastics                                      6 (2.5%)
    Food                                          4 (1.7%)
  Service (25.3%)
    Logistics                                     16 (6.8%)
    Municipality                                  9 (3.8%)
    Education                                     8 (3.4%)
    Healthcare                                    8 (3.4%)
    Telecommunication                             8 (3.4%)
    Research and development                      5 (2.1%)
    Environment                                   3 (1.3%)
    Tourism                                       2 (0.8%)
    Finance                                       1 (0.4%)
Number of employees
  Small (less than 100)                          56 (25.3%)
  Medium (between 100 and 250)                   48 (21.7%)
  Large (more than 250)                          117 (53.0%)
Job title
  Senior manager (top manager, vice manager)     27 (11.6%)
  Middle manager                                 125 (53.9%)
  Quality manager                                102 (44.0%)
  Sales and marketing manager                     4 (1.7%)
  Production manager                              3 (1.3%)
  Human resources manager                         3 (1.3%)
  Finance and accounting manager                  1 (0.4%)
  Other manager                                   12 (5.2%)
  Low-level manager                              63 (27.2%)
  Nonmanager (engineer or technician)             17 (7.3%)
Existence of ISO certification
  Yes                                            202 (92.2%)
  No                                              17 (78%)
Existence of quality awards
  Yes                                            144 (64.0%)
  No                                             81 (36.0%)
Existence of firm awards
  Yes                                            35 (16.0%)
  No                                             184 (84.0%)

* The numbers in the parentheses give percentages
of the corresponding values.

Table 4: Rotated factor matrix of the TQM practices.

Variables                            Factor loadings

                 Item       Item       Item       Item       Item
               number 1   number 2   number 3   number 4   number 5

Leadership       0.75       0.56       0.58        --         --

Knowledge        0.56       0.58       0.62       0.53       0.68
and process

management       0.57       0.80       0.68       0.60       0.55
Training

Supplier         0.56       0.65       0.67       0.75       0.72
quality

management       0.82       0.79       0.61       0.56       0.60
Customer
focus

Strategic        0.66       0.56       0.67       0.79       0.71
quality
planning

                                             Percentage   Percentage
Variables              Factor loadings        variance      total

                 Item       Item     Eigen   explained     variance
               number 6   number 7   value   by factor    explained

Leadership        --         --      2.09       6.74         6.74

Knowledge        0.66       0.59     4.10      13.22        19.96
and process

management        --         --      3.01       9.72        29.68
Training

Supplier          --         --      3.49      11.27        40.95
quality

management       0.52        --      3.81      12.29        53.24
Customer
focus

Strategic         --         --      3.69      11.90        65.14
quality
planning

Table 5: Rotated factor matrix of the firm performances.

Variables                           Factor loadings

                           Item      Item       Item
                         number 1   number 2   number 3

Operational                0.83       0.83       0.63
performance
Inventory management       0.85       0.88        --
performance
Employee                   0.76       0.71       0.76
performance
Innovation                 0.68       0.77       0.80
responsibility
Social responsibility      0.82       0.82       0.81
Customer results           0.66       0.72       0.54
Market and financial       0.75       0.81       0.85
performance

Variables                           Factor loadings

                          Item       Item      Eigen
                         number 4   number 5   value

Operational                 --         --       2.55
performance
Inventory management        --         --       2.01
performance
Employee                   0.78       0.70      3.46
performance
Innovation                 0.77       0.78      3.54
responsibility
Social responsibility      0.73       0.74      3.73
Customer results            -          --       1.86
Market and financial       0.84        --       3.27
performance

Variables                Percentage    Percentage
                          variance       total
                         explained      variance
                          by factor    explained

Operational                 9.46          9.46
performance
Inventory management        7.42         16.88
performance
Employee                    12.80        29.68
performance
Innovation                  13.12        42.80
responsibility
Social responsibility       13.83        56.63
Customer results            6.89         63.52
Market and financial        12.11        75.63
performance

Table 6: Descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha, and bivariate
correlation for the variables in the research model *.

      Variables                            1      2      3      4

1     Leadership                          0.77    --     --     --
2     Knowledge and process management    0.64   0.87    --     --
3     Training                            0.55   0.65   0.81    --
4     Supplier quality management         0.56   0.63   0.56   0.84
5     Customer focus                      0.53   0.62   0.57   0.59
6     Strategic quality planning          0.63   0.66   0.60   0.58
7     Operational performance             0.41   0.43   0.46   0.39
8     Inventory management performance    0.23   0.50   0.37   0.40
9     Employee performance                0.50   0.45   0.55   0.45
10    Innovation performance              0.28   0.43   0.33   0.35
11    Social Responsibility               0.51   0.60   0.50   0.58
12    Customer results                    0.40   0.46   0.47   0.41
13    Market and financial performance    0.35   0.51   0.37   0.34
14    TQM index                           0.80   0.86   0.80   0.82

      Variables                            5      6      7      8

1     Leadership                           --     --     --     --
2     Knowledge and process management     --     --     --     --
3     Training                             --     --     --     --
4     Supplier quality management          --     --     --     --
5     Customer focus                      0.86    --     --     --
6     Strategic quality planning          0.66   0.90    --     --
7     Operational performance             0.48   0.42   0.86    --
8     Inventory management performance    0.30   0.28   0.37   0.90
9     Employee performance                0.42   0.56   0.49   0.36
10    Innovation performance              0.36   0.31   0.49   0.41
11    Social Responsibility               0.50   0.60   0.42   0.36
12    Customer results                    0.50   0.46   0.66   0.40
13    Market and financial performance    0.51   0.33   0.41   0.43
14    TQM index                           0.79   0.84   0.52   0.43

      Variables                            9      10     11     12

1     Leadership                           --     --     --     --
2     Knowledge and process management     --     --     --     --
3     Training                             --     --     --     --
4     Supplier quality management          --     --     --     --
5     Customer focus                       --     --     --     --
6     Strategic quality planning           --     --     --     --
7     Operational performance              --     --     --     --
8     Inventory management performance     --     --     --     --
9     Employee performance                0.87    --     --     --
10    Innovation performance              0.45   0.88    --     --
11    Social Responsibility               0.51   0.47   0.90    --
12    Customer results                    0.60   0.51   0.45   0.81
13    Market and financial performance    0.34   0.43   0.44   0.47
14    TQM index                           0.60   0.42   0.67   0.55

      Variables                            13     14    Mean   S.D.

1     Leadership                           --     --    4.18   0.72
2     Knowledge and process management     --     --    4.05   0.68
3     Training                             --     --    4.07   0.63
4     Supplier quality management          --     --    3.46   0.82
5     Customer focus                       --     --    4.42   0.58
6     Strategic quality planning           --     --    4.21   0.70
7     Operational performance              --     --    4.49   0.53
8     Inventory management performance     --     --    4.01   0.83
9     Employee performance                 --     --    4.02   0.71
10    Innovation performance               --     --    4.09   0.74
11    Social Responsibility                --     --    4.27   0.73
12    Customer results                     --     --    4.40   0.59
13    Market and financial performance    0.90    --    4.16   0.72
14    TQM index                           0.49   0.90   4.07   0.56

* N = 242; all correlations are significant at the P < 0.01
level (2-tailed). Values on the diagonal are Cronbach's alpha.

Table 7: The results of the regression analysis between
TQM index and performance measures.

Dependent variable:                            Independent
performance                                    variable:
                                               TQM index

                              [beta]     T       P       Result

Regression 1                   0.52    9.45    0.00    Significant
  Operational performance
Regression 2                   0.41    6.88    0.00    Significant
  Inventory management
  performance
Regression 3                   0.60    11.51   0.00    Significant
  Employee performance
Regression 4                   0.42    7.03    0.00    Significant
  Innovation performance
Regression 5                   0.67    13.81   0.00    Significant
  Social responsibility
Regression 6                   0.55    10.11   0.00    Significant
  Customer results
Regression 7                   0.48    8.28    0.00    Significant
  Market and financial
  performance

Dependent variable:                    Independent
performance                            variable:
                                       TQM index

                              [R.sup.2.     F
                              sub.adj]

Regression 1                    0.27      89.37
  Operational performance
Regression 2                    0.17      47.37
  Inventory management
  performance
Regression 3                    0.35      132.47
  Employee performance
Regression 4                    0.17      49.39
  Innovation performance
Regression 5                    0.44      190.84
  Social responsibility
Regression 6                    0.30      102.28
  Customer results
Regression 7                    0.22      68.53
  Market and financial
  performance

All regressions are significant at the P < 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 8: The result of the regression analysis between
TQM practices and operational performance.

Independent variables                       Dependent variable:
                                            operational performance

                               [beta]    T      P        Result

Leadership                      0.11    1.40   0.16   Insignificant
Knowledge and process           0.03    0.39   0.70   Insignificant
  management
Training                        0.21    2.73   0.01    Significant
Supplier quality management     0.02    0.32   0.75   Insignificant
Customer focus                  0.26    3.21   0.00    Significant
Strategic quality planning      0.01    0.16   0.88   Insignificant

[R.sup.2.sub.adj] = 0.28; F = 16.39; P < 0.001.

Table 9: The result of the regression analysis between
TQM practices and inventory management performance.

Independent variables            Dependent variable: inventory
                                     management performance

                               [beta]    T      P        Result

Leadership                     -0.19   -2.40   0.02   Insignificant
Knowledge and process          0.51    5.63    0.00    Significant
  management
Training                       0.10    1.21    0.23   Insignificant
Supplier quality management    0.18    2.35    0.02   Insignificant
Customer focus                 -0.01   -0.14   0.89   Insignificant
Strategic quality planning     -0.10   -1.18   0.24   Insignificant

[R.sup.2.sub.adj] = 0.26; F = 15.10; P < 0.001.

Table 10: The result of the regression analysis between TQM
practices and employee performance.

Independent variables                 Dependent variable:
                                      employee performance

                         [beta]    T      P        Result

Leadership               0.17    2.31    0.02   Insignificant
Knowledge and process    -0.09   -1.15   0.25   Insignificant
management
Training                 0.30    4.22    0.00    Significant
Supplier quality         0.08    1.18    0.24   Insignificant
management
Customer focus           -0.36   -0.49   0.62   Insignificant
Strategic quality        0.31    3.93    0.00    Significant
planning

[R.sup.2.sub.adj] = 0.39; F = 26.48; P < 0.001.

Table 11: The result of the regression analysis between
TQM practices and innovation performance.

Independent variables                 Dependent variable:
                                      innovation performance

                         [beta]    T      P        Result

Leadership               -0.04   -0.50   0.62   Insignificant
Knowledge and process    0.30    3.18    0.00    Significant
management
Training                 0.04    0.47    0.64   Insignificant
Supplier quality         0.10    1.25    0.21   Insignificant
management
Customer focus           0.13    1.59    0.11   Insignificant
Strategic quality        -0.04   -0.38   0.70   Insignificant
planning

[R.sup.2.adj] = 0.18; F = 9.84; P < 0.001.

Table 12: The result of the regression analysis
between TQM practices and social responsibility.

Independent variables                 Dependent variable:
                                      social responsibility

                         [beta]    T      P        Result

Leadership                0.04    0.53   0.60   Insignificant
Knowledge and process     0.20    2.64   0.01    Significant
management
Training                  0.04    0.53   0.60   Insignificant
Supplier quality          0.25    3.64   0.00    Significant
management
Customer focus            0.01    0.07   0.94   Insignificant
Strategic quality         0.28    3.69   0.00    Significant
planning

[R.sup.2.sub.adj] = 0-45; F = 34.16; P < 0.001.

Table 13: The result of the regression analysis
between TQM practices and customer results.

Independent variables                 Dependent variable:
                                      customer results

                         [beta]    T      P        Result

Leadership                0.05    0.61   0.54   Insignificant
Knowledge and process     0.07    0.80   0.42   Insignificant
management
Training                  0.18    2.30   0.02    Significant
Supplier quality          0.04    0.53   0.60   Insignificant
management
Customer focus            0.25    3.20   0.00    Significant
Strategic quality         0.09    1.07   0.28   Insignificant
planning

[R.sup.2.sub.adj] = 0-30; F = 18.20; P < 0.001.

Table 14: The result of the regression analysis between
TQM practices and market and financial performance.

Independent variables                 Dependent variable: market
                                      and financial performance

                           P       T      P        Result

Leadership               0.02    0.26    0.80   Insignificant
Knowledge and process    0.38    4.40    0.00    Significant
management
Training                 0.02    0.25    0.80   Insignificant
Supplier quality         -0.06   -0.80   0.42   Insignificant
management
Customer focus           0.40    5.13    0.00    Significant
Strategic quality        -0.17   -2.06   0.04   Insignificant
planning

[R.sup.2.sub.adj] = 0.31; F = 19.13; P < 0.001.

Table 15: Frequency distribution of the reasons
of TQM practices of firms.

The reasons ofTQM practices            Frequency   Percentage (%)

Improving operational performance         160           34.2

Improving customer satisfaction and       103           22.0
  portfolio
Increasing market and financial           95            20.3
  performance
Supporting continuous improvement         54            11.5
  and innovations
Enhancing employees' performance          49            10.5
  and participation
Improving social responsibilities          7            1.5
  of the firm

Table 16: Frequency distribution of the barriers of the
TQM practices.

                                        Frequency   Percentage (%)

Lack of employee involvement               82            24.7

Inadequacy of the firm structure and       61            18.4
  lack of the resources
Illiteracy and unawareness among the       51            15.4
  employees
Constraints of the industry/market         38            11.5
Inaccuracy and assessment difficulty       33            9.9
  in the process planning
Inadequacy in the leadership               27            8.1
  comprehension
Lack of understanding the importance       13            3.9
  of continuous improvement
Discrepancies among customers'             10            3.0
  expectations
Difficulty in the TQM structure            10            3.0
Lack of the suppliers' support              7            2.1
COPYRIGHT 2014 Hindawi Limited
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research Article
Author:Sadikoglu, Esin; Olcay, Hilal
Publication:Advances in Decision Sciences
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7TURK
Date:Jan 1, 2014
Words:11947
Previous Article:Implementing second-order decision analysis: concepts, algorithms, and tool.
Next Article:Packing different cuboids with rotations and spheres into a cuboid.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters